Haha, fair point. But I admit to being open minded to the possibility I'm wrong.

Most religious people are 110% certain about these matters.

Every life support system is in decline. Biological diversity is decreasing at an alarming rate. Natural occurrences are not to blame. We are.

The earth will, of course, survive. But we may not, nor may many other species. This is of a MUCH higher concern than the economy, which is saying a lot considering how big that problem is.

I understand the need to fix the economy, but the environment has been ignored since before the economy was an issue, so it's not an excuse for our inaction.

Finally, economic issues only plague human generations. Environmental isues plague everything alive.

To me, it's a no brainer.

Real democracy is about collective decision making. But we don't have that kind of democracy. We have the power balancing/sharing kind, and it's not always even great at that. But democracy at its inception was about people coming together and making decisions as a group. I believe "rule of the mob" comes to mind, and though I'm no history buff, that's probably the reason the founding fathers declined democracy in its truest form.

At which point does killing become murder? You can obviously take the lives of fungi, bacteria, and plants without causing an uproar. For animals it's a bit trickier. Insects are ok to kill because they're a nuisance. But other animals aren't?

----------------------------------------------------

I don't have any problem with using animals for food. My problem lies in the fact that they aren't respected prior to the time we kill and eat them. I'd much prefer it if animals were given a lot of roaming space, were killed humanely, etc. I want an animal used for meat to be given the most natural life we can possibly give within a farm setting.

Individual effort is futile in every large-scale problem. But if we all put forth effort, our efforts are no longer individual they are collective.

So this defeatist attitude only works if you are relying on everyone else to fail. If, instead, you hope that some will succeed, then your efforts will join theirs, making a bigger difference than any of you alone could have.

Some have English as their #2 language including some of my bosses. They speak whatever language at home then come to work and I can barely understand a freaking word.

This is probably because you tune out any non-American accent. I have a problem with people coming here and not learning our language, but I have nothing but respect for those that make an effort to make English a second (or third or fourth) language. Sometimes I'll have to ask a non-native speaker for clarification, or to slow down, but if we both make a little effort, conversation is not complicated or impossible.

" In fact, do you know one of the reasons why our codes were unbreakable in WWII?"

Yeah, I did know. ..Thanks anyways. We don't need that anymore.

What makes you think that we won't need it in the future?

Statue of liberty? Yeah, once again this isn't about immigrants it's about culture. So that really is irrelevant.

It's entirely relevant. Tell me what characterizes American culture (the one that we ought to keep unadulterated by any others) that is purely original?

I think the increasing trend towards social networking sites is ultimately bad for the intelligence of society. Sure, they're writing, but what and how? Nothing important and not very well.

People are stupid enough as it is, and I fear that these sites are just making us dumber.

I really wish there were 3-sided debates and I could say, "sort of". I believe that we don't know. I like the idea of a benevolent force in the universe, so I choose to believe that. But I am open-minded enough to admit the possibility that I am entirely wrong.

Believing in God is fine, but believing you know about the nature of God and how he created the world is silly. Nobody can know these things, and so many different religions purport to know, but give such different accounts, that we are better off admitting it's up in the air.

I hate seeing bumper stickers or t-shirts saying, "Do you know where you'll go when you die?" No, I don't, and neither do you.

I don't agree that corrupt politicians have difficulty staying in office. Dick Cheney was given a second term as George W's VP, and he was terribly corrupt. The problem with politicians is they look after their money-makers, who are far more important to them than their constituents.

Politicians may run the country, but lobbyists run politicians. There are 65,000 in Capitol Hill! Everything is motivated by money, and as such, the little guys get no fighting chance.

The FDA is a joke. They recently decided that high fructose corn syrup was natural. They slap health claims on Cocoa Puffs and Lucky Charms, leaving potatoes and carrots alone in the dust. They also approved bovine growth hormone as safe for human consumption, when it was anything but. This organization is a piece of crap that does nothing to look out for the consumer.

in 99% of the cases working in a sweatshop environment - though deplorable by our standards - beats the alternative of roaming garbage heaps

There are certain rights all people ought to be entitled to. I don't think it's ok for kids to work 14 hour days six or seven days a week just because it is better than the alternative. These jobs attract people because they are desperate. And as soon as a corporation has used up all the desperation that group has, they will move on to a more desperate area and exploit their people. The point of all this is that corporations make RIDICULOUS profits. They could easily afford to pay a livable wage to third world countries just like they could afford to protect the environment, but money is the bottomline so they do not. The most dangerous thing about a corporation is that regardless of what values the people who run them may have, they are literally required to put their shareholders first, which means making lots of money regardless of who or what gets hurt in the process.

You're absolutely right. The best way to destroy a company is by not purchasing what they sell. But alas, nobody cares enough to do so. If this were true, Chevron, Coca-Cola, Dow Chemical, Halliburton, Monsanto, and Nestle would all be out of business. Convenience and price come way above values in determining where to shop.

Though states make the laws, they are run by corrupt politicians who are in the pockets of the corporations, so this effectively doesn't matter. Theoretically states ought to be more powerful, but in reality they are not.

Corporations were created for the public, but that is no longer the model. They originally were given end dates by which time they were forced to absolve, but now can exist forever.

I will argue only on the nation of America, because to generalize is too difficult. America is supposed to be a government of the people, but the people have no rights/control of corporations. They work for their shareholders only, and never the stakeholders.

Trees are a renewable resource, however. And clean energy is the exception, not the rule, at least for now.

I think that physical copies of books are fine in the future, so long as trees are farmed in a responsible way.

Good point on recycling however, there is a lot of debate as to what substances are actually more efficient to recycle than to mine from the earth the first time.

The environment, because it affects a slew of living creatures, and not just people. Since our actions are having an impact on every other living system in nature, we ought to fix that first, and focus on the economy second.

Furthermore, people only want to fix the economy because it's a problem that is here and now. The environment, on the other hand, is a problem that can be handed down and made the problem of our children and our children's children. We cannot keep up this intergenerational tyranny any longer.

Have you never killed a spider? Cockroach? Mosquito? If so, was it for a selfish human need?

I don't know that there's anything wrong with killing other animals for our own needs, though it is wrong to kill for sport. The way an animal is killed and the freedom it was given in life is what matters.

I would agree that we are overpaying some people based on their value contributions, but I disagree on who those people are. Executives, for instance, make far more money than they are worth, and far more than they know what to do with. If less money went to those who arguably don't deserve it, then perhaps we could afford to pay low skill laborers what they are worth in terms of value and hard work.

"Low skill jobs don't add much value and should be paid as such. Minimum wage is basically just a twisted form of welfare. "

Though these jobs might not require much skill, they are still quite valuable. What would happen if we suddenly had no gas station attendants? No garbagemen? No grocery clerks?

And generally people in this type of job work very hard. They are not easy jobs, regardless of the fact that they require no education or special qualifications.

Well said. In 1965, the average CEO made about 24 times the average worker at his/her company. By 2007, that ratio had grown to about 275 times the average worker's pay.

Money corrupts.

The problem is that most people are stupid. They will vote on and comment on the most entertaining and attention-grabbing information, and not necessarily the information that matters most.

Besides, nothing beats going outside with a good book and enjoying two of life's greatest pleasures (3 if you bring sweet tea).

Physical books rock hard. What will happen when we lose all technology and head into another Dark Ages? Physical books will pull us out of it!

Keep buying real books! (But buy them in cash!!!)

Having read the entire description of the question, I just noted that physical books were described as "bad for the environment". It's interesting, because I just heard a segment on NPR not too long ago about something similar. They looked into the environmental effects of actual newspapers vs. reading online, and found that because so much energy was used to power the servers supplying the news (let alone the power used to receive it) getting an actual newspaper was actually better for the environment. Especially since they can be recycled. Now, books are a different matter, but I enjoy keeping them forever and going back to re-read, sometimes loaning them out, etc. So it's not as though they are a waste of trees as a one-time use thing.